Richard Nisbett, in The Geography of Thought, identifies ‘east’ and ‘west’ in terms of two influential ancient cultures: China, and Greece. Ancient Chinese culture and its influence throughout Eastern Asia, with primary philosophers such as Confucius, largely determined an ‘eastern’ way of thinking that is high context, interdependent and focused on social harmony, fluctuating, and holistic as exhibited in abstract and paradoxical thought. Ancient Greece, on the other hand, with philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, influenced the region in terms of low context, detail-oriented, and linear understanding, with traditions of reason and logic. Nisbett further demonstrates how this plays out in cultures to this day, and how styles of thought and communication, while surely transmitted intergenerationally and socially constructed, also have an heredity element.

This idea of east and west was emphasized as a result the Silk Road trade route that stretched between Europe and East Asia, active for 1500 years (130 BCE to 1453 CE), by which these very different cultural landscapes became increasingly familiar with one another. (Intercultural competence, rather than simply a recent trend related to globalization, multiculturalism, or ease of travel, is very far from new; regular traders along this route would have been highly competent across cultures.) More recently, the concept of ‘Orientalism’ emerged among late 18th century European scholars studying East Asia, and ‘Occidentalism’ developed in response (though these terms are largely out of favor today).

While the framework of abstract and paradoxical thinking vs reasoning and logic rings true, and we can see much evidence of this, we might also view these distinctions of ‘east’ and ‘west’ in terms of collectivism vs individualism.

Collectivist societies, certainly seen throughout Asia, are interdependent; other factors include time as cyclical, fatalism and acceptance of divine, communication implicit and narrative, relationships historical and hierarchical, burden shared and inclusion as well as expertise respected, rules applied according to position and context, preservation of mutual / other dignity, avoidance of shame, and long-term orientation.

Individualist societies, in contrast, have elements such as independence, time as linear, self-determination and human mastery, communication explicit and direct, relationships objective and egalitarian, privacy / autonomy / self-efficacy, universal application of rules, preservation of self-dignity, avoidance of guilt, and short-term orientation.

As such, the use of ‘east’ and ‘west’ as cultural identifiers make sense. Except—

Also collectivist are Arabia, Africa, Latin America, eastern and southern Europe, Türkiye and Russia. Individualist societies include only the western, central, and northern areas of Europe, and other ‘western’ nations including UK and Ireland (though less so the latter), US (while Canada, ‘western’, falls midway between collectivist and individualist), and Australia and New Zealand – though the indigenous peoples of the latter four are collectivist in nature.

So, ‘east’ and ‘west’ don’t fully correspond to ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ concepts, either.

Common criticism of the concept begins with the broad sweep of generalization represented, making it very much a stereotype. Are all ‘western’ societies the same in any sense? No more than all ‘eastern’, though some cultural features and values may be shared. This concept is based less on geography and more on individualism vs collectivism, but as we’ve seen, that’s far less than exact as well. (Let’s just think of Europe for example, as ‘western’ – except it’s starkly divided between individualist and collectivist societies. Any European will readily tell you there’s no such thing as one European culture; they’ll also easily tell you how different Europe is from UK, never mind from North America. As another example: ‘eastern’ ignores marked cultural distinctions among Asia’s subregions: MENA, central, south, northeast, and southeast.)

Other criticisms are that this nomenclature doesn’t consider migration patterns, the legacy of multiple empires, and other major influences of cultural blending and overlap; that dynamism and variability even within any given culture renders this scheme relatively meaningless; that the soft power of US culture has spread globally, bringing more similarity than difference overall as distinct cultural features continue to be lost.

And more than any of this: the ‘East/West’ view of the world essentially ignores the southern hemisphere. Are Latin American or African countries ‘western’? They share many features with Asia, and speak of ‘the west’ as elsewhere, yet we don’t consider them Asian, either. What about Russia, or Türkiye, or Arabia? None of them easily fit or consider themselves part of either framing.

We must also mention the North/South Divide, as it’s commonly known, in our quest to become interculturally competent. A longstanding issue of discrimination both sociopolitical and economic, both Latin American and African countries historically colonized by Europe, this division and marginalization or exclusion of the southern hemisphere (with the exception of Australia and New Zealand, precisely because they too were colonized and the vast majority of citizens today are of British / Irish heritage) continues in many ways to this day.

.

Our next few chapters, By Region, will take a look at regions of the world through the lens of several intercultural frameworks previously presented, plus salient historical events and/or socioeconomic factors. These are offered as starting points only, with keen awareness that each region contains countless cultures and subcultures and that all frameworks provide continuums and scatterplots rather than absolutes. For example, Asia tends toward hierarchy while Latin America tends toward egalitarian – though individual cultures within each region fall somewhere on a spectrum, not all cultures will fit the description, and there are more nuances than we could begin to know. Each of these frameworks has also received some criticism over the years, yet they remain widely used even so. A starting point, then. With this caveat, firmly in mind.

.

Exercises

Discussion or Contemplation: What do ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ mean when referring to cultures? How does the ‘south’ fit into this framework?

Writing or Recording: What do I think of when I hear the terms, ‘western’ or ‘eastern’ related to cultures? Do I hold any stereotypes based on these terms, and if so, what steps can I take to shift my orientation toward a more inclusive one?

Further Reading: How East and West think in profoundly different ways

.